P/24/1553/OA Outline planning application for the development of land west of Old Street for up to 62 dwellings together with associated works
Brief history
· Earlier application was for up to 160 houses (later reduced to up to 150): application made December 2017; refused by FBC March 2018; appeal dismissed by planning inspector January 2019.
· Each of the two fields is now effectively divided into three sections:
o The bottom section of each field has been committed as mitigation for loss of habitat for Brent geese and other Solent waders at a site now being developed by Bargate on Newgate Lane: this should mean that it cannot be used for any building development.
o The middle section has been planted with saplings by Bargate, presumably so they can claim that any building on the top section would be shielded from view in the Haven and by the canal.
o The top section, adjoining Old Street, is the subject of this latest application for 62 houses.
· The planning inspector’s decision in January 2019 is absolutely crucial in terms of the grounds she used to dismiss the appeal. The decision is on HHRA’s website www.hhra.org.uk Latest News. The key statement is in paragraph 44: Notwithstanding the substantial benefits that would flow from the proposed development there would also be very substantial harms. In this case the conflict with the development plan and the environmental harm that would ensue to the countryside within the valued landscape of the Lower Meon Valley is of compelling importance and outweighs the many advantages of the scheme. I have considered all other matters raised but have found nothing to change my conclusion that this would not be a sustainable form of development and that the appeal should not succeed.
· There have been pluses and minuses since that decision was made:
o On the plus side, FBC now has a Local Plan to 2037 which would enable them to meet the housing targets they were set.
o On the minus side, FBC has not been able to keep up with the annual targets within the plan and they are also expecting increased targets to be set by the new government.
o Another minus is that the current proposal is for less than half the original number of houses and they are further from the boundaries with Titchfield Haven National Nature Reserve (THNNR)
Issues which HHRA will address in its response:
1. The environmental concerns set out in the FBC refusal and the inspector’s dismissal still apply: the development would be an incursion into the valued landscape of the Lower Meon Valley and would cut across and reduce the strategic gap.
2. Despite the fact that there would be fewer houses than originally planned, the proximity to THNNR still presents a threat to birds, reptiles and mammals, particularly ground nesting birds such as curlew and marsh harriers and migrating birds such as Brent geese. Cats, dogs, children playing and light disturbance would all affect the ecology of the area adversely.
3. The hedgerows on all sides of the development, including those bordering Marsh Lane (the track which bisects the site and provides access to the upper part of THNNR for HCC), would be adversely affected. The loss of hedgerows is a major issue for the natural health of the countryside and every effort should be made to preserve them.
4. It is assumed that Bargate planted the saplings in the middle stretch of the fields to counter the planning inspector’s criticism of the negative visual effect of housing on the highest point of the land in this area. However, would anything stop them getting rid of those trees in future? The existing planting has not been successful and is very immature if the intended purpose was to offer some visual screen between the proposed new housing and the historic landscape on the Meon Valley.
5. The management of water run off is of considerable concern. The plans appear to show it draining into the culvert behind the houses on the north side of Knights Bank Road: all owners of those properties can provide evidence of the culvert filling and overflowing after even moderate rain. Bargate’s proposals are not a sustainable approach to water management.
6. Access and egress from the site would increase the traffic on a stretch of road which is already experienced by local people as dangerous: the junction and bend from Plymouth Drive, and the junctions and bends with Short Road and Knights Bank Road are all ‘cut’ by fast moving traffic, putting other vehicles – particularly bikes – and pedestrians at risk. Two new access points from the proposed development would add significantly to this danger. There is no provision for a footpath on the west side of Old Street and pedestrians crossing the road appears to be at significant risk.
7. Any suggestion that the site would be easily accessible by public transport is ridiculous: there are four number 21 buses per day Monday to Friday, but none at the weekend. The first one leaves Stubbington at 10.00 and the last one leaves Fareham at 14.00 so it cannot be used for school children, students or people at work. Furthermore, it is highly possible that HCC will cease their subsidy of the route in the next round of funding cuts in which case it would no longer exist.
8. There is a target for affordable housing within the outline application and it is not uncommon for developers to trade the requirement from one development to be provided elsewhere, thus making such a commitment meaningless.
9. Many residents have rightly drawn attention to the difficulty in getting GP appointments, any access to NHS dental services and pressure on school places. Further houses, presumably with more than 200 occupants, will add to these difficulties.
Comments